Posts tagged with "business"

When is A Non-Compete Geographical Limitation Unreasonable?

In Braman Chemical Enterprise, Inc. v. Barnes, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3753, Ms. Valerie Barnes worked as an exterminator for Braman Chemical Enterprises, Inc. from November 5, 1990, to April 26, 2006.  On October 24, 1990, in preparation for Ms. Barnes beginning to work, the parties executed a non-compete agreement titled “Restriction Against Other Employment After Termination of Work With Braman Chemical Enterprises, Inc.” where it stated that Ms. Barnes was prohibited from working at any branch of a pest control business within fifty miles of the Hartford City Hall for a period of six months.  The company provided pest control services to commercial and residential customers in approximately ninety percent of Connecticut’s towns and cities.  Ms. Barnes worked the majority of her career with Braman servicing the area defined as east of New Haven, west of Guilford, south of Meriden, and north of the Long Island Sound.  She received training for her operator’s license while employed by Braman but obtained her supervisor’s license on her own time and at her own expense.

On April 26, 2006, Ms. Barnes voluntarily terminated her employment at Braman and formed a Connecticut limited liability company called “Bug One, LLC” based in Hamden that provided substantially identical services as her previous employer.  Braman sued Ms. Barnes in Connecticut state court to enforce the non-compete and enjoin her from further violations of the restrictive covenant’s provisions.  Ms. Barnes asserted that the geographical limitation in the agreement was unreasonable and provided an unnecessary amount of protection for Braman.

The court found Ms. Barnes’ argument to be meritorious and denied Braman’s request to enforce the agreement.  A non-compete agreement is analyzed in its entirety but a single unreasonable provision can be sufficient to invalidate the entire agreement and prevent enforcement.  Connecticut courts have traditionally tended to apply greater scrutiny to a non-compete agreement that creates a general restriction on a geographical area than agreements that focus simply on doing business with the employer’s clients.  Employers are legally allowed to protect themselves in a “reasonably limited market area” but may not overreach to the degree that the restriction prevents the former employee from practicing his or her trade in order to make a living.  While Braman contended that the geographical limitation was reasonably tailored to meet its legitimate business needs, the court held that the provision went well beyond the “fair protection of plaintiff’s [Braman’s] interests”.  The geographical area of fifty miles from Hartford City Hall placed an unreasonable restraint on trade for Ms. Barnes.  The court notes that the prohibited area covered roughly two million potential customers and an area of 7,850 square miles, covering parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York.  To put this in perspective, the entire state of Connecticut is only 5,018 square miles.  This area as defined in the non-compete agreement was thus an unreasonable limitation and sufficient cause to invalidate the entire agreement.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Non-Compete Invalidated Due to Unnecessary Restrictions on Future Employment

Non-Compete Invalidated Due to Unnecessary Restrictions on Future Employment
Connecticut Bathworks Corp. v. Palmer, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2193

Connecticut Bathworks Corporation was a company servicing New Haven, Fairfield, and Litchfield counties that remodeled bathrooms via the installation of prefabricated acrylic bathtub liners and wall systems. The company employed Mr. Palmer from approximately the beginning of April 2001 to February 28, 2003 at which point Mr. Palmer voluntarily terminated his employment. He began to work for Re-Bath of Connecticut, a company in direct competition with Bathworks, the next day. The issue in this case is that Mr. Palmer signed a “Company Confidentiality Agreement” when he began to work for Bathworks that contained a covenant not to compete that prohibited him from “being employed by any business in competition with the plaintiff [Bathworks] within any county in which the plaintiff is doing business for a period of three years from the termination of his employment with the plaintiff”. This created a three-year prohibition on working for a competitor with the tri-county area of New Haven, Fairfield, and Litchfield.
Bathworks sued Mr. Palmer in Connecticut state court and requested an injunction to enjoin him from further violations of the non-compete agreement. The court analyzed the facts of the case, held in favor of Mr. Palmer, and denied Bathworks’s request for injunctive relief. The court’s decision ultimately came down to the issue of whether Mr. Palmer’s employment with Re-Bath would negatively affect Bathworks’s interests and business operations. Bathworks carried the burden of establishing the probability of success on the merits of the case and the court held that it failed to present sufficient evidence to indicate it would be directly and immediately harmed due to breach of the restrictive covenant.
Bathworks argued that Mr. Palmer acquired valuable trade secrets and information during his employment with the company and that his continued employment with Re-Bath would harm its operations. The court however found that Mr. Palmer, as an installer, did not have access to Bathworks’s confidential information or any trade secrets that would put the company at a competitive disadvantage. The court further noted that while Mr. Palmer was a skilled laborer, he was not a high-level executive, nor did he provide “special, extraordinary, or unique” services. Bathworks also failed to present any evidence to show that Mr. Palmer knew of or took part in the company’s sales/marketing activities or the development of a business strategy.
The court stated that its role in deciding the case was to balance the parties’ interest to fairly protect Bathworks’s business while not unreasonably restricting Mr. Palmer’s right to seek employment elsewhere. This agreement however, according to court, unnecessarily restricted Mr. Palmer’s right to work at another company because there was nothing about that employment which would disadvantage Bathworks in the industry. The non-compete agreement went beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the company’s interests and as such, the court denied Bathworks’s request for an injunction.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Sufficient Consideration for At-Will Employees

Sufficient Consideration for At-Will Employees
Home Funding Group, LLC v. Kochmann, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41376

Home Funding Group, LLC was a New York corporation with primary business operations in Connecticut that engaged in the residential mortgage brokerage business. The company employed Mr. Nicholas Kochmann and Mr. Patrick Dougherty in its New Jersey office. They worked for the company from January 2004 to May 1, 2006 and July 18, 2006 respectively. The company had both employees sign an Employment Agreement that contained non-compete and non-solicitation clauses to protect Home Funding’s business interests. The employees later signed an “Invention Assignment Agreement” stating that Home Funding was the sole owner of any invention connected to their employment and that it would maintain full intellectual property rights. The agreement stated that Connecticut law would govern any legal disputes and litigation in state and/or federal court. Both employees signed a new restrictive covenant in March 2006 that amended and superseded the 2004 Employment Agreement.
Misters Kochmann and Dougherty both voluntarily terminated their employment with Home Funding and Hamilton Financial, a direct competitor in the mortgage broker industry, hired them shortly thereafter. Home Funding sued its two former employees for breach of the non-compete agreements and requested they be enjoined from further employment with Hamilton Financial. Misters Kochmann and Dougherty asserted that the agreements were not legally binding on them because they lacked valid consideration, claiming that continued employment is inadequate consideration for a covenant executed after the start of employment. The federal court sitting in Bridgeport, Connecticut rejected this argument and held that the agreements were properly executed, contained adequate consideration, and were binding upon the parties.
The former employees argued that Connecticut law requires an employer to promise to something different from what it is already obligated to do when it wants to modify/amend a restrictive covenant with one or more of its employees. The court however applied Home Funding’s legal assertion that at-will employees may be terminated at any time at the employer’s discretion and thus continued employment amounted to adequate consideration to support a valid non-compete agreement. The court noted that in this case, Home Funding had the burden of proof at trial to demonstrate that the agreement was correctly executed and enforceable. Home Funding was able to provide such proof and the federal court held in its favor. Had Misters Kochmann and Dougherty not been at-will employees however, the court would have likely held that the agreement did not have the requisite consideration and could have invalidated the agreement in its entirety.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Court Invalidates Non-Compete Agreement for Excessive Restraint of Trade

Court Invalidates Non-Compete Agreement for Excessive Restraint of Trade
CT Cellar Doors, LLC v. Palamar, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3247

CT Cellar Doors was a Connecticut company owned by Mr. Claude Raffin that designed and installed custom metal basement entry doors, windows, and other accessories. Mr. Raffin hired Mr. Stephen Palamar in January 2006 as an installer and later promoted him to operations foreman on August 21, 2007. The promotion involved a substantial pay raise conditioned on Mr. Palamar signing a “noncompetition-nondisclosure agreement”. The parties executed the restrictive covenant wherein Mr. Palamar agreed to not compete with CT Cellar Doors anywhere within the state of Connecticut for three years following his termination from the company. Mr. Palamar voluntarily terminated his employment on May 24, 2010, registered himself as a home improvement contractor with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Affairs, and began doing business as Custom Cellar Doors. His new company advertised and performed the same services he performed while in CT Cellar Door’s employ.
CT Cellar Doors sued Mr. Palamar in Connecticut court for “irreparable harm to its goodwill, reputation, and name” and requested injunctive relief because there was no adequate remedy at law. Both parties agreed that the central issue of the case was “whether the agreement was enforceable under Connecticut law”. The court and parties likewise recognized that CT Cellar Doors had the burden to show that both parties signed the agreement and that Mr. Palamar had violated its provisions. Once/if those were established, then Mr. Palamar bore the burden to show that the agreement was unenforceable. The parties did not dispute, as a matter of fact, that the agreement was signed and that Mr. Palamar violated its terms. The dispute is over whether, as a matter of law, the agreement is valid and enforceable. The court ultimately found in favor of Mr. Palamar and held that the agreement executed by the parties was unreasonable and unenforceable.
Mr. Palamar presented two arguments to address whether the agreement was reasonable under Connecticut law: 1) the agreement had inadequate consideration and 2) it was an unreasonable restraint of trade. The court rejected the first argument, noted the substantial pay raise Mr. Palamar received, and held that it constituted adequate consideration. Although that defense failed, the court agreed with Mr. Palamar that the agreement was an excessive restraint of trade and the agreement was unreasonable because it denied him the right to earn a living in his chosen profession that he had had for twenty-five years. The court also noted that CT Cellar Doors did not present adequate evidence to demonstrate that they had experienced or were likely to experience irreparable harm. At the time that litigation began, CT Cellar Doors had fifty clients while Mr. Palamar only had two. CT Cellar Doors was not able to articulate a claim and present evidence that Mr. Palamar’s actions had damaged its business operations.
While CT Cellar Doors had a legitimate business interest to protect, the provisions of the non-compete went too far and placed oppressive occupational restraints on Mr. Palamar and excessively restricted his ability to secure future employment in his chose profession. This lack of balance between the interests of the parties ultimately led the court to find the restrictions unreasonable and for it to invalidate the non-compete agreement.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Four-Prong Test Applied to Enforce Non-Compete Provision in a Franchise Agreement

Four-Prong Test Applied to Enforce Non-Compete Provision in a Franchise Agreement
Money Mailer Franchise Corporation v. Wheeler, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2260

Mr. Douglas Wheeler entered into a Franchise Agreement with Money Mailer Franchise Corporation on February 28, 2003 wherein he was assigned a mailing territory comprised of thirteen zip codes in Fairfield and New Haven counties. Money Mailer was a business that franchised a system of providing direct mail order advertising and related services. The Franchise Agreement contained a covenant not to compete that prohibited Mr. Wheeler from engaging “in any Competitive Activities with the Territory [his thirteen zip codes] or within the territory of any other “Money Mailer” franchise then in operation” for a period of two years following termination. This essentially obligated Mr. Wheeler to not engage in any competing business enterprise within fifty miles of any Money Mailer franchise.
Mr. Wheeler sold his franchise to Mr. Javier Ferrer on October 31, 2007 for $130,000. He executed an additional non-compete agreement in connection with this transaction wherein he promised not to compete for three years following the closing of the deal. In February 2008, he began to work as an Independent Contractor for Direct Advantage, a direct competitor engaged in the same business(es) as Money Mailer. Money Mailer sued Mr. Wheeler for breach of the Franchise Agreement and requested that the court enforce the provisions contained in the non-compete agreement. Mr. Wheeler acknowledged that he was involved in the exact same business addressed and prohibited in the non-compete agreement and admitted to soliciting several of Money mailer’s previous and current customers.
The Connecticut state court granted Money Mailer’s request for injunctive relief and ordered the enforcement of the restrictive covenant. The court stated that the purpose of injunctive relief was to preserve the status quo of the parties until the case was definitively decided. It further noted the relevant standard of review for granting a request for an injunction and specified four factors: 1) no adequate remedy at law, 2) plaintiff would experience irreparable harm if the request was not granted, 3) plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits of the case, and 4) an injunction would sustain the balance of the parties’ equities. The court concluded that Money Mailer’s case met all of these requisite factors and its complaint warranted relief in the form of a temporary injunction.
The court concluded that an injunctive order was necessary to balance the parties’ interests during the legal proceedings and that the temporary injunction would essentially restore the parties to their relative positions before the alleged violation of the non-compete agreement. Money Mailer was able to demonstrate that Mr. Wheeler’s actions had a detrimental impact its business interests. Additionally, the court found that Money Mailer was likely to prevail on the merits of its complaint, specifically citing that Mr. Wheeler’s own testimony provided abundant evidence of activities that should trigger the enforcement of the restrictive covenant. For these enumerated reasons, the court granted Money Mailer’s request for an injunction restraining Mr. Wheeler from further violations of the non-compete provisions contained in the Franchise Agreement executed between the parties in 2003.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Three-Year Restriction Found Unreasonable in CPA Non-Compete Agreement

Haims, Buzzeo & Co. v. Wikstrom, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2539

Ms. Nancy Wikstrom owned a certified public accounting firm, Wikstrom & Company, which she sold to Haims, Buzzeo & Co. (HBC) on January 1, 2001. The purchase agreement outlined the obligations of the respective parties and contained a covenant not to compete. Ms. Wikstrom was to stay on as an employee of HBC, continuing to work as a certified public accountant (CPA) and she agreed to bring her clients’ business to the firm. The non-compete agreement prohibited her, for a period of three years following termination, from soliciting clients and engaging in competing business activities within the city of Stamford, Connecticut. In exchange for these covenants, Ms. Wikstrom was to receive employment, $30,000 monthly payments to begin on January 1, 2010, and compensation for the sale of her former company’s good will and stock.
The merger of the two accounting firms did not go very well and Ms. Wikstrom left HBC in March 2002 due to dramatic differences in business personality and management style. She proceeded to start her own accounting firm, the Wikstrom Group, located in Stamford that provided the same accounting services as HBC. HBC interpreted these actions as clear violations of the non-compete agreement and sued Ms. Wikstrom in Connecticut state court for breach of the restrictive covenant. The company specifically claimed that she had “actively and purposefully tried to induce her former clients to come with her to the new accounting practice she created, and otherwise attempted to hinder and damage the plaintiffs in their practice”. Ms. Wikstrom however claimed that the agreement was unenforceable and that she did not violated any legally binding clauses contained in the purchase and employment agreements.
The court ultimately denied HBC’s request for an injunction preventing further violations of the non-compete agreement and concluded that the agreement was in fact unenforceable. It reached this decision based on several factors: 1) HBS had failed to demonstrate it was likely to succeed on the merits of the case and 2) the company failed to prove that it had incurred irreparable harm because of Ms. Wikstrom’s actions. After examining the facts of the case and the provisions of the non-compete agreement, the court held that injunctive relief was inappropriate and HBC was not entitled to an injunction restraining Ms. Wikstrom’s business actions.
The company was not able to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate to the court that it was likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Most notably, the court addressed the reasonability and enforceability of the restrictions contained in the restrictive covenant. The geographical limitation was reasonable in scope but this was not true for the three-year time restriction. This, according to the court, was unreasonable because Ms. Wikstrom had been practicing as a CPA for over thirty years, had many long-standing loyal clients, and needed income from her chosen profession to sustain herself. The three-year period was too long, in the opinion of the court, and unnecessarily restricted her business actions and ability to pursue her occupation.
Furthermore, HBC did not demonstrate that it had incurred irreparable harm or that it was likely to do so in the future. The only clients that left HBC where those that were clients of Wikstrom & Company prior to the merger of the two accounting firms. The court noted that those clients would actually be harmed if an injunction was granted and held that its denial was the only way to maintain the status quo between the parties. By denying the request for an injunction, the court permitted HBC and Ms. Wikstrom’s new company to carrying on their business activities as they had been doing the previous eighteen months (since Ms. Wikstrom voluntarily terminated her employment with HBC).
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Court Awards Wife Alimony in Addition to a Portion of Husband’s Business

It is well recognized that in dissolution actions, a trial court may exercise broad discretion when dividing property and awarding alimony, as long as it considers all relevant statutory criteria. For many reasons, one of which is that a trial judge has the benefit of observing witnesses first hand, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s decision unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. This of course is a very heavy burden for an appellant to satisfy, but the standard makes sense, and is not insurmountable. That being said, the appellate process presents its own challenges and to the extent an appellate court may exercise its own discretion to arrive at a desired result, it can be relatively unpredictable.

In a recent appellate decision, the Court addressed whether it was appropriate for a trial judge to award a wife alimony in addition to a portion of the husband’s business, which provided his sole stream of income. In McRae v. McRae, 129 Conn. App. 171 (2011), the defendant owned a software production company, while the wife owned a decorative painting business. The main issue of contention at trial concerned the value of the husband’s company. Both parties utilized business valuation experts who introduced testimony on the issue, and after hearing evidence, the Court relied on the husband’s expert. Interestingly, the Court also made findings as to the parties’ respective earning capacities, as opposed to their actual earnings. The Court ultimately divided the marital property equally, including the husband’s business as part of the marital estate. In addition, the Court awarded the wife periodic alimony for a term of ten years.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court’s decision to take his business into account in both the property division scheme and the award of alimony constitutes improper double dipping, a generally recognized concept. The Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision on two main grounds. First, it held that although C.G.S.A. § 46b-81 allows a trial court to consider its property division order when fashioning an alimony award, nothing in the statutory framework forbids a court from awarding periodic alimony to one spouse when the court has made an equitable distribution of the other spouse’s closely held business. The Court also held that the trial court specifically based the alimony award on the parties’ earning capacities- not the husband’s business- which it is permitted to do. This case further exemplifies not only the broad discretion a trial court is permitted to exercise in the context of a dissolution action, but also illustrates the degree of deference the Appellate Court will afford a trial judge when reviewing the underlying decision.

Should you have any questions regarding matrimonial cases, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Attorney DeMeola welcomes inquiries regarding matrimonial matters and can be reached in the firm’s Westport office by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading

Test for Granting a Temporary Injunction for Breach of Connecticut Non-Compete

Test for Granting a Temporary Injunction for Breach of Connecticut Non-Compete
Group Concepts, Inc. v. Barberino, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1036

Group Concepts, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation that is in the business of condominium association management and has its office in Hamden. The company entered into a stock purchase agreement on September 11, 2002 to purchase Barberino Real Estate, Inc., a company that managed condominiums and other properties. Group Concepts had Ms. Tina Barberino sign a non-compete agreement as part of the acquisition transaction. In exchange for $84,500, Ms. Barberino agreed not to compete with Group Concepts “within the state of Connecticut until September 2004 and from soliciting any of the clients listed on schedule B of the stock purchase agreement for a period of three years”.
Ms. Barberino began to work at Ennis Property Management, Inc. on October 5, 2003 and competed directly with Group Concepts within the state of Connecticut. She contacted clients enumerated on schedule B of the stock purchase agreement and Group Concepts lost several accounts because of Ms. Barberino’s actions. Group Concepts sued Ms. Barberino in Connecticut state court for breach of the non-compete agreement and requested an injunction to prevent further violations of the restrictive covenant. The court granted Group Concepts’ request for an injunction and ordered the enforcement of the non-compete clause through September 30, 2004 and the non-solicitation clause through September 11, 2005, the respective dates as stated in the restrictive covenant.
In order for a court to grant a temporary injunction, the moving party must submit evidence that demonstrates: 1) it does not have an adequate legal remedy, 2) it would suffer irreparable injury absent the injunction, 3) it would likely prevail on the merits of the case, and 4) the injunction would balance the equities of the parties involved in the dispute. The court said it need not apply the entire test in this case and only analyzed the third and fourth components to hold that the agreement was enforceable and an injunction was warranted.
The court concluded that a preponderance of the evidence submitted by the parties indicated that Group Concepts would most likely prevail on the merits of its suit. The provisions of the non-compete agreement were reasonable and the facts of the case clearly pointed to a cognizant breach of the non-compete agreement. The court concluded that the overall fact pattern of the case demonstrated that Group Concepts would likely prevail on the merits and held that the company met this requirement for the granting of the injunction request.
The court also held that an injunction would balance the equities of the parties. The court felt that an injunction and enforcement of the non-compete was necessary to protect Group Concepts from experiencing a significant business hardship in connection to Ms. Barberino’s breach of the covenant. Group Concepts paid substantial consideration ($84,500) for its acquisition of Ms. Barberino’s company and relied on it to prevent Ms. Barberino from breaching the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. An injunction would prevent Group Concepts from experiencing adverse business trends because of Ms. Barberino’s undeniably unlawful breach of the non-compete agreement.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

In Divorce Action, Family Business Deemed Marital Asset, Wife Entitled to One-Half Interest

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

In a recent divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford declared, as a marital asset subject to division, a business the husband formed and from which he officially retired but continued working for thereafter. The plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married for thirty-eight (38) years and resided in Stamford. The husband was the primary breadwinner and controlled finances within the marriage. Among a number of businesses and properties in which the husband held interest was one he formed in the early 1990s. This family-run business venture provided lucrative income for the husband, which supported a very comfortable lifestyle. Until the time he retired, the husband was the principal officer of the business, and on January 1, 2012, the husband retired “with the intention of turning it over to his elder daughter.” However, evidence was presented that despite his official retirement the husband remained active with the company, including check-signing power.

In its findings, the trial court did not find credible the husband’s testimony regarding his retirement from the family business, and believed he “continues to play and will continue to play a significant role in the business.” As such, the court believed it proper to consider the husband’s earning capacity while crafting alimony and child support orders. It deemed the business a marital asset, to which the wife had a fifty (50) percent interest in the net proceeds from its sale. The trial court enjoined and prohibited the husband from selling or transferring his interest in the company. If the husband attempted to do so without court approval, it would be in violation of automatic orders, and the sale or transfer would be treated as void ab initio, or from the beginning.

Whether advancing or defending a pre- or post-judgment motion regarding awards of alimony and assignment of property, a divorced individual is best served by consulting with an experienced family law practitioner. Should you have questions regarding matrimonial matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Keywords: divorce attorney ct, divorce attorneys in ct, divorce attorneys ct, divorce attorney Connecticut, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce attorney, divorce attorneys NYC, ct lawyers, Connecticut family attorney, divorce lawyer in ct, free divorce consultation, free consultation family law, divorce in ct, free consultation family law, Connecticut divorce lawyer, divorce attorney for men, divorce attorney for women, free divorce attorney, divorce lawyers in ct, ct divorce laws, ct divorce attorney, family law firm, divorce attorney Fairfield, attorneys in Connecticut, family law office, ct divorce mediation, best divorce attorney in ct, lawyers in ct, uncontested divorce, divorce lawyer nyc, Connecticut divorce laws, best divorce attorney, divorce attorney Hartford, new haven divorce attorney, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm ct, law office, legal advice in ct, ct divorce attorneys, family attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup in CT, custody in CT, filing divorce in CT, filing, lawyers, attorneys, family law in CT, family in NY, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law NY, matrimonial law CT, custody NY, child custody CT, property division in CT, dissolution of marriage in CT, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, visitation in CT, visitation rights in CT, post marital agreements, divorce law firm CT, divorce law firm NY

Continue Reading